First customer pain point pull request - default-hook

[Adam Collard]

The charms I maintain and write are in Python and use charm-helpers. I have
a file called hooks.py and a bunch of symlinks pointing to it. Presumably
this change would push me to rename hooks.py to default-hook.

The issue I have is that then I cannot (easily) test that file, because
it's not a valid Python module name. So I'd end up still having hooks.py
and a symlink from default-hook to that. I'm not sure that this fix would
then alleviate the pain point...


On 20 August 2014 23:43, Tim Penhey <tim.penhey at canonical.com> wrote:

> On 21/08/14 02:50, Nate Finch wrote:
> > I would expect a lot of people will implement their charms as a single
> > script (especially given the number of charms we've seen implemented
> > that way even with minimal support for it).  If the special hook file is
> > called "default-hook", it makes those single-script charms seem like
> > less of a hack than if the single file is called "missing-hook".  It
> > would also makes more sense to a new charm author, I think.
>
> +1 to default-hook
> -1 to missing-hook
>
> As Aaron mentioned, it isn't missing if it is there.
>
> I agree that default-hook is more likely to make sense to newcomers.
>
> Tim
>
>
> --
> Juju-dev mailing list
> Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20140821/d2aeb693/attachment-0001.html>